CHAPTER XXI. ACCOUNT OF THE GNOSTIC TEACHERS AND THEIR TENETS.

Section I. Simon Magus, Nicolas, and the Ebionites.

Several writers have speculated upon the sources of the Gnostic errors;

but, I believe that the assertion of Irenæus remains uncontradicted, that

SIMON MAGUS was the first to give them a definite form(538). We learn from

Theodoret(539), Elias Cretensis(540), and Nicetas(541), that he imagined

an ogdoad of superior beings, all the rest of whom emanated from the

first. He imagined one First Cause, the source of all existence, with whom

he joined his Thought (Ἔννοια). Irenæus mentions no more than these(542).

Simon taught that this Thought, issuing forth from the Supreme Father, and

knowing his intentions, descended from above, and produced the Angels and

Powers by whom the world was made, and who were ignorant of the Father:

that they, not wishing to acknowledge any author of their existence,

detained her, and subjected her to every kind of contumely, to prevent her

return to the Father, and caused her to exist in this world in perpetual

transmigration from one female form to another.

He taught that he himself was this Supreme Father(543), and a prostitute,

named Helena, whom he had purchased at Tyre, and with whom he cohabited,

was his Thought, who had been formerly the Trojan Helen: that she was the

lost sheep(544), and that he was come down upon earth to rescue her from

the bondage in which she was held; and to rescue man by the knowledge of

himself from the tyranny they were under to the angels who created the

world. This tyranny was obedience to the moral law, which was imposed upon

man by the agency of the inspired persons of the old dispensation solely

to keep him in subjection: and the deliverance he accomplished for his

followers was to bring them to believe that all actions were indifferent

in their own nature, and that the will of the Creative Powers was the only

thing which made one action more just than another. To do away with this

tyranny, he declared that he had transformed himself first into a

resemblance to the angels, then into that of man; in which latter form he

had appeared in Judæa as the Son, and there apparently suffered; but only

apparently(545); that he had afterwards manifested himself to the

Samaritans as the Father, and to the rest of the world as the Holy

Ghost(546).

Irenæus gives it as his own opinion that the conversion of Simon was only

pretended; that he regarded the Apostles as nothing more than impostors or

sorcerers of a somewhat deeper skill and subtler knowledge than himself,

which he hoped to be initiated into: and that his mortification at the

rebuff he met with caused him to set himself in opposition to them, and to

dive deeper into magic arts for that purpose; on account of his

proficiency in which he was honoured by Claudius Cæsar with a statue(547).

The natural fruits followed from such doctrines and such an example. The

priests of his heresy were sorcerers of various degrees of ability, and

their lives were very impure. They taught their followers to worship Simon

under the form of Jupiter, and Helena under that of Minerva(548).

It is obvious that such a scheme was adapted only to the gross and

ignorant, with just enough of mysticism about it to enable its founder to

keep up the character of a philosopher with the more refined, and enable

him to pass off his lewdness as the result of a philosophical system,

rather than the dominion of low propensities. The Emperor Claudius,

notorious as a man of weak intellect, was an extremely likely person to be

both amused and duped by his magical performances.

We have here the germ of all the Antinomian heresies from that time to the

present. However they may have been _espoused_ by refined and virtuous

minds, they all originate with persons of impure and unbridled

propensities, who are unwilling to avow the real grossness of their

characters, and therefore set up for some deeper knowledge or more subtle

system than ordinary men.

It will be observed, too, that Irenæus confirms the statement of Justin

Martyr respecting the statue erected in honour of Simon(549). The subject

is so well taken up by the late Dr. E. Burton, in the 42nd note to his

Bampton Lectures, that I do not purpose to enter into it here, further

than to remark that Irenæus ought not to be regarded as merely _following_

Justin: for he himself had visited Rome, and was therefore likely to have

informed himself personally upon a subject which he thought sufficiently

important to bring forward in controversy.

It is likewise a fact deserving notice, that the first instance we have of

the worship of images amongst persons recognizing in any degree the

gospel, is to be found amongst the followers of Simon Magus. Something of

this kind probably suggested St. John’s caution: “Little children, keep

yourselves from idols.”

Concerning NICOLAS, the author, whether intentionally or not, of the sect

which bears his name(550), he informs us that he was one of the seven

deacons, which some have doubted. He gives us no additional information

concerning the sect, beyond that furnished by St. John(551). This,

however, connects them with the Gnostics in their licentious doctrines,

and no further.

The EBIONITES are mentioned by Irenæus, as though he meant to class them

with the Gnostics: but all the information he gives respecting them leads

to the conclusion that they had nothing in common with them, except their

schism. He expressly states that they believed differently from the

Gnostics, and agreed with Christians as to the creation of the world; and

that they differed from Cerinthus and Carpocrates on the subject of the

miraculous conception(552). Tertullian(553) indeed implies that Ebion

denied this latter fact; and Eusebius distinctly asserts of the great body

of his followers, that they thought, as Carpocrates and Cerinthus did,

that Jesus was a mere man, and exalted for his excellence like other

men(554): but he states, and Theodoret(555) confirms his statement, that

there were Ebionites who believed the miraculous conception.

Section II. Menander, Saturninus, And Basilides.

The succession of heresy, unlike that of the Church, had not for its

object the keeping up of one uniform system of doctrine, but the

exhibition of something sufficiently attractive or striking to prevent the

minds of men from dwelling upon the truth. It required _leaders_, and

therefore persons remarkable for ability of some kind or another. A

successor was therefore provided to Simon in the person of MENANDER, a

Samaritan like himself(556), and, as Justin informs us, his pupil(557);

but whose great qualification was, that he equalled or excelled his master

in the knowledge of magic(558). Heresy, likewise, not requiring to be

uniform, permitted its successive teachers to improve upon the system of

their predecessors; and by this means both satisfied the natural love of

mankind for novelty, and kept up the appetite. So Menander differed a

little from Simon, at least in expression, in saying that the Supreme

Essence was unknown to all men. He likewise introduced another _name_ from

the Gospel, representing himself, not as the Supreme Being, either

personally or by direct emanation and operation, (as Simon did,) but as

the Saviour, _sent_ by the unseen Powers for the salvation of man. He

likewise taught his followers, that by the magical practices in which he

instructed them, they might even _vanquish_ the Angelic Creators of this

lower world, which was somewhat more than Simon promised.

It appears likewise that he initiated his followers by _baptism_, which he

represented as the true and only resurrection, and taught them to believe

that after receiving it they could neither grow old nor die(559). How he

got over the fact that they did both, we are not informed: but this making

baptism the same thing as the resurrection, explains St. Paul’s

words(560), where he represents some as teaching that “the resurrection is

already past.” Hymenæus and Philetus, who spread this error in all

probability in Asia Minor, might easily have been disciples of Menander,

who made Antioch his head quarters(561).

Menander was succeeded by two of his pupils(562), SATURNINUS and

BASILIDES, who, though taking up the same general system, were very

different men, and therefore modified it in different ways, and were

employed by their invisible master in different parts of _his_ vineyard.

SATURNINUS remained at Antioch, teaching the same general doctrine as his

preceptor Menander. He defined the number of the angels by whom the world

was made to be seven(563), one of whom was the God of the Jews; and he

introduced one of the remaining angels, who had not been concerned in the

creation, under the name of Satan, as the opponent of the Creators, and

more especially of the God of the Jews(564). He represented the creation

of man as having taken place at the suggestion of the Supreme Power, who

exhibited to the angels a bright image of himself; which, as he

immediately drew it up again to himself, they endeavoured to copy, and

thus made man _after its image and likeness_: but not having the power to

make him erect, he would have grovelled on the earth like a worm, had not

the Supreme Power, taking compassion on this poor copy of himself, sent

forth into it a spark of life, which gave it limbs and an erect

posture(565). By an unaccountable inconsistency, however, (for having a

system to make or improve at pleasure, he might as well have made its

parts consistent with each other,) he likewise taught that there were at

first created two sorts of men, one of which was not enkindled with the

celestial spark: that those alone would be saved who possessed it(566);

and that when they died, this heavenly portion of them would ascend to the

Powers above, and the other portions of their nature would be

dissolved(567).

The cause of the coming of the Saviour, or _Christ_, as they also called

him, (who was unborn, incorporeal, and man only in appearance,) he

declared to be the conspiracy of all the Angelic Princes, headed by the

Jewish God, against the Supreme Father; which obliged him to come down to

destroy the God of the Jews, together with demons and wicked men, and to

save those who believed in him, that is, those who had received the spark

of life. Who these demons were, or whether the whole of the angels were to

be destroyed, we are not told(568).

The prophecies of the Old Testament he attributed partly to the Creators

and partly to Satan(569).

It is evident that this is merely a modification of the scheme of Simon

Magus, with the addition of _Satan_, and _the Jewish God_, and _the spark

of life_: but there is another feature of his system which is remarkable,

as differing widely from that of his predecessors. Instead of opening the

door to unbridled lust, he affected an extraordinary repugnance to every

thing carnal, declaring marriage and its natural consequences to be works

of Satan; and some of his followers entirely abstain from animal

food(570).

BASILIDES(571), the other successor of Menander, settled at Alexandria in

Egypt. He was, as I have said, a man of very different character from

Saturninus, and followed his master in his addiction to magical practices,

and in his licentious doctrines; teaching likewise that meats offered to

idols were to be eaten indifferently with others(572).

But that he might have something of his own, he greatly modified and added

to the speculative system of his predecessors. He taught that from the

Unborn Father was born his Mind, and from him the Word, from him

Understanding (Φρόνησις), from him Wisdom and Power, and from them

Excellences, and Princes, and Angels, who made a heaven. He then

introduced a successive series of angelic beings, each set derived from

the preceding one, to the number of 365, and each the author of their own

peculiar heaven(573). To all these angels and heavens he gave names(574),

and assigned the local situations of the heavens. The first of them is

called Abraxas, a mystical name containing in it the number 365(575); the

last and lowest is the one which we see; the Creators of which made this

world, and divided its parts and nations amongst them. In this division

the Jewish nation came to the share of the Prince of the Angels; and as he

wished to bring all other nations into subjection to his favourite nation,

the other angelic Princes and their nations resisted him and his

nation(576). The Supreme Father, seeing this state of things, sent his

first‐begotten Mind, who is also called Christ, to deliver those who

should believe in him from the power of the Creators. He accordingly

appeared to mankind as a man, and wrought mighty deeds. He did not,

however, really suffer, but changed forms with Simon of Cyrene, and stood

by laughing whilst Simon suffered; and afterwards, being himself

incorporeal, ascended into heaven. Building upon this transformation,

Basilides taught his disciples that they might at all times deny him that

was crucified, and that they alone who did so understood the providential

dealings of the Most High, and by that _knowledge_ were freed from the

power of the angels, whilst those who confessed him remained under their

power(577). Like Saturninus, however, but in other words, he asserted that

the soul alone was capable of salvation, but the body necessarily

perishable(578).

He taught, moreover, that they who knew his whole system, and could

recount the names of the angels, &c., were invisible to them all, and

could pass through and see them, without being seen in return: that they

ought likewise to keep themselves individually and personally unknown to

common men, and even to deny that they are what they are; that they should

assert themselves to be neither Jews nor Christians, and by no means

reveal their mysteries(579). This, of course, and their unscrupulousness

as to actions of any kind whatever, would entirely exempt them from

persecution.

It appears likewise, from a fragment preserved in Origen’s _Commentary on

the Romans_(580), that he taught the transmigration of souls. He affirmed

that the martyrs suffered for offences committed at some other time: for

he thought it contrary to the divine justice that any innocent person

should suffer(581).

In this scheme we find a feature, which was afterwards taken up and

amplified, viz., the connection of mystical numbers with Gnosticism.

It is likewise curious to observe how much of the Gospel history and

phraseology was interwoven with it, without one single atom of its purity

and regenerating influence.

Section III. Carpocrates And Cerinthus.

CARPOCRATES is placed by Irenæus next to Basilides(582): but as there is a

general agreement amongst the early writers that Carpocrates was prior to

Cerinthus(583), and that the latter flourished in the last years of St.

John, it appears most probable that Carpocrates was, if any thing, earlier

than Basilides, and more properly coeval with Menander. In favour of this

idea there is this internal argument, that his system does not appear to

be in any degree an amplification or alteration of that of Basilides, but

rather to have been an independent modification of the original scheme of

Simon.

He agreed with him, and Menander, and Basilides, in professing magic(584),

and in preaching licentious doctrines. He agreed with Simon likewise in

teaching the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and adapted it to

the support of profligacy, by asserting that every soul is destined to

become acquainted with every kind of action, and that it passes from body

to body until it has accomplished every thing to which it is

predestined(585).

Like all other Gnostics, he asserted that the world and human bodies were

made by Angels(586); he agreed with some in teaching that all souls were

originally in the same _sphere_ (περιφορὰ) as the Supreme Being(587), but

that when once placed in bodies, they continued under the power of the

Angels, until they had fulfilled their destined task; that when a person

died, his soul was brought before the Prince of the Angels, by the Devil,

and if it had not accomplished every thing, was handed over to another

Angel, to be inclosed again in a body; but that when it has fulfilled its

destiny they have no longer any power over it, but it returns to the

Father, from whom it originally came(588).

Unlike Simon, however, or any whom I have yet mentioned, (except, perhaps,

Ebion) he taught that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph; that being

brought up in the Jews’ religion, remembering what he had been when in the

same sphere with the Father, and being of an unusually firm and resolute

mind, he looked down upon the Angels, and set at nought bodily

suffering(589). But his followers thought that there was no reason why any

individual man might not surpass Jesus, and that, in point of fact, many

of their sect were superior to the Apostles. Others went so far as to

affirm, that the Apostles were not at all inferior to Jesus, and that if

any man whatever could attain to a greater degree of contempt for the

Creators than Jesus arrived at, he would become superior to him(590).

They affirmed that we are to be saved by faith and love; all actions being

good or bad only according to human opinion; and that Jesus taught their

system as an esoteric doctrine to the Apostles, who delivered it to those

who were worthy(591).

Some branded their followers upon the right ear(592).

I mentioned before that the first worship of images arose amongst

heretics: and it is remarkable that heretics again, viz. the

Carpocratians, were the first to pay honour to the image of Christ, whom

they worshipped equally with Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, with

the same kind of honour as that which was customary amongst the

heathen(593).

One of the female followers of Carpocrates, by name Marcellina, is said to

have visited Rome in the time of Anicetus, and to have seduced many(594).

Respecting CERINTHUS, whom we know from Irenæus to have been a

contemporary of St. John(595), the information he furnishes is very

slight. He did not attribute the Creation to the Angels in a body, but to

some one Power far removed from the Supreme Power. He made Jesus a mere

man, but more excellent than other men: he affirmed that the Christ had

descended upon him at baptism, and made known to him the unknown Father,

and empowered him to work miracles, but that he departed from him before

the crucifixion, and left him to suffer alone(596).

Section IV. Cerdon, Marcion, Tatian, And The Cainites.

CERDON would seem to be another independent offset from the stock of

Simon. He likewise taught a Supreme God, the Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ, and another inferior deity, who inspired the prophets(597). He

joined the church at Rome under Hyginus, its bishop, i. e. about A.D. 141,

and appears to have wished by all means to remain in its communion; and

accordingly he recanted his error. He could not, however, refrain from

spreading it covertly, and being detected, he again recanted; still he

kept his heresy, and being at length judged incorrigible, he was withheld

from the communion of the Church(598).

MARCION succeeded Cerdon(599), and took up and amplified his doctrine. He

likewise made the Creator inferior to the Supreme God, and the author of

evil, fond of war, inconsistent, and self‐contradictory; and taught that

Jesus was sent by the Supreme God to do away all the operations of the

Creator, and especially the Law and the Prophets(600). He agreed with

other Gnostics in declaring that the soul alone was capable of salvation,

and of souls only those which received his doctrine; but the peculiarity

of his system was, that Cain, and the Sodomites, and Egyptians, &c. were

saved by believing in Jesus, when he descended into hell; but that Abel,

Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and all the good men and prophets of the Old

Covenant, having often been deceived by their God, were afraid to trust in

Jesus, and consequently remain still in the state of death(601).

Another peculiarity was that, whilst professing to receive portions of the

New Testament, such as the Gospel of St. Luke and the Epistles of St.

Paul, he rejected every portion of them which he imagined to militate

against his hypothesis(602).

Marcion, who, having been originally a Christian, and the son of a Bishop,

had been excommunicated for seduction(603), appears to have harmonized

with Saturninus in professing extraordinary strictness of habits(604).

Hence some of the followers of both formed themselves into a separate

sect, called by a name (Ἐγκρατεῖς) of which perhaps PURITANS is the best

English Translation. TATIAN, who had been a sincere Christian, was

formerly a disciple of Justin, and had written a treatise to set forth the

folly of the heathen religion(605), became a leading man amongst them: for

they adopted an opinion of his that Adam was not saved. Their most

distinguishing characteristics however were, their abstinence from

marriage, and from animal food(606).

Marcion taught that Cain and the Sodomites, &c. were saved by believing in

Jesus(607). Others went further, and declared that they were agents of the

Supreme Power, to oppose the God of this world. They likewise took Judas

under their patronage, and declare that he betrayed Jesus, not from

treachery or a love of gain, but because, being better instructed than the

rest, he was aware that the death of Jesus would be the means of

dissolving and breaking up the whole work of the Creator, whom they

regarded as in rebellion against the Great Original(608).

Section V. The Barbeliots, Ophites, And Sethites.

Those of whom I have hitherto spoken have been acknowledged disciples,

more or less directly, of Simon Magus. But there were others, who owned no

connexion with him, and yet taught a system more or less like his. The

BARBELIOTS, for instance, imagined one Supreme Being, and with him another

Being of the female sex, but remaining always a virgin, and never growing

old, whom they call Barbelo, Ennœa (Thought), &c.

They say that he _willed_ to manifest himself to her, and that she, coming

into his presence, called for Foreknowledge, and she came forth. At their

request again Incorruption was produced, and then Life Eternal. After this

Barbelo herself produced a light like to herself, which the Father saw and

anointed with his goodness, and thus made it the Christ. At his request

Understanding was sent him as a helpmate, and afterwards the Father added

the Word: upon which there were made Pairs, by the union of Thought and

the Word, Incorruption and the Christ, Life Eternal and the Will of the

Father, Understanding and Foreknowledge; all of whom magnified the Great

Light and Barbelo(609).

From Thought and the Word was then sent forth the Self‐existent and the

Truth; from the Christ and Incorruption, four Lights to attend upon the

Self‐existent; and from Will and Life Eternal, four Beings to wait upon

these Lights, namely, Grace, Will, Comprehension (Σύνεσις), and Prudence.

These were joined respectively to the four Lights, and made other four

Pairs(610).

These two quaternions being settled, the Self‐existent creates a man, in a

state of perfection, named the Unconquered, and in union with him

Knowledge, likewise perfect. From these were manifested the Mother, the

Father, and the Son, and they jointly produced the tree of knowledge, and

their enjoyment consists in celebrating the praises of the Great

Being(611).

Lastly, Charis, the attendant upon Harmogenes(612), produces the Holy

Spirit, called likewise Wisdom and Prunicus. She, seeing herself unmated,

stretched herself forth in every direction, and even towards the nether

parts, seeking her mate; and in the effort brought forth a production in

which appeared presumption and ignorance; which production became the

Prime Governor, and Maker of this world, and Creator of Powers and Angels,

and being paired with Presumption, he begot malice, and emulation, and

jealousy, and fury, and desire: upon which his mother, being grieved,

departed and left him alone; whence he imagines that there is none but he,

and utters that sentiment by the mouths of the prophets(613).

There was another more intricate and complete hypothesis, which owned no

master, but took its denomination variously from two different marked

portions of it, which will be noticed in their place(614).

It supposed, like most of its predecessors, an Original, called the First

Light, the Father of all, and the First Man; and his Thought, issuing from

him, and thence called the Son of Man. Next to them came the Holy Spirit,

the first woman, which hovered over the elements, water, darkness, the

abyss and chaos. From the Father and Son, impregnating the Spirit, came

the Christ, the third man(615). By this impregnation, however, she was

filled so superabundantly, that she produced not only the Christ on the

right hand, but also another Being, imbued likewise with light, called

Wisdom and Prunicus, a hermaphrodite. Upon this the Christ was united with

the first Three, and with them formed the true holy Church(616); whilst

Wisdom descended upon the waters, and moved them to their lowest depths,

and took from them a material body, which had nearly overpowered her; but

making a great effort, by the aid of the supernal light within her, she

rose aloft, and from her body, by a voluntary expansion, created the

heavens(617).

She, moreover, had a son, who knew not his mother, but sent forth from the

waters a son of his own, and he another, and so on to the seventh, who,

with their mother formed an ogdoad(618); the first of whom was named

Jaldabaoth, the second Jao, the third Great Sabaoth, the fourth Adonai,

the fifth Eloeus (or Elohei), the sixth Horeus, the seventh Astaphæus. All

these for some space of time sat harmoniously in heaven, in due

subordination one to the other: but Jaldabaoth, confident in having been

the author of the others, took upon him to create angels and archangels,

and excellencies, and powers and dominions; envious at which, his

posterity rebelled against him: upon which he fixed his desires upon the

unformed matter, and from it produced a son in the form of a serpent,

called Understanding, (from whom these people derived their name of

OPHITES(619),) and subsequently Spirit, Soul, and all earthly things, from

which sprang forgetfulness, malice, emulation, jealousy, and death(620).

Jaldabaoth, blindly exulting in his success, exclaimed, _I am Father and

God, and besides me there is no other_; but his mother astonished him and

his posterity, by exclaiming, _Lie not, Jaldabaoth, for there is above

thee the First Man, the Father of all, and Man the Son of Man_. To call

off their attention from this intelligence, he invited them to make man in

their own image. This idea their mother secretly encouraged, that they

might empty themselves of their celestial virtue. Their production,

however, although immense in size and length, lay sprawling on the ground,

until they brought it to their father, who, to the great satisfaction of

Wisdom, breathed into it the breath of life, and thereby emptied himself

of his virtue(621). This newly‐created being, therefore, was possessed of

_understanding_ and _desire_, and deserting his Creators, gave thanks to

the First Man(622).

Jaldabaoth upon this being jealous of him, endeavoured to re‐extract the

celestial virtue from him, by creating woman from his desire; but

Prunicus, having invisibly taken charge of her, extracted the virtue from

her, and the posterity of Jaldabaoth, admiring her beauty, called her Eve,

and begot from her angels. The machinations of Prunicus did not end here,

for she employed Understanding, the son of Jaldabaoth, who was in the form

of a serpent, to seduce the man and woman into disobedience to the

commands of Jaldabaoth, by eating the forbidden fruit(623), by which means

they became acquainted with the Supreme Virtue, and forsook their

Creators(624). Upon this they were ejected from paradise, and being

deprived by Prunicus of the divine light they had, that nothing divine

might be subjected to curse, they were cast out into this world, together

with the serpent, who from the earthly angels begat seven sons, in

imitation of Jaldabaoth and his six descendants. These with their parent

are always opposing the welfare of the human race(625).

Before Adam and Eve fell they had bright and spiritual bodies; but

afterwards their bodies became opaque and heavy, and their souls relaxed

and weak; until Prunicus having pity on them, restored to them the savour

of the heavenly light, by which means they became aware of their degraded

condition. Knowing, however, that the debasement was only temporary, they

complied with their condition, ate and drank, and begat Cain and Abel, of

whom Cain, being seized on by the serpent, fell into folly and

presumption, envy and murder. After this, by the interposition of

Prunicus, they begat Seth and Norea, from whom mankind sprung(626), and

were seduced by the serpent and his children into every evil; although

Prunicus constantly opposed them, and saved the celestial light(627). So

likewise when Jaldabaoth, enraged at not being worshipped by mankind, sent

the flood upon them, Wisdom saved Noah and his family, for the sake of the

tincture of light which was in them. Abraham, however, and the Jews were

the chosen people of Jaldabaoth, who with his six descendants chose agents

from among them, each for himself, to glorify him as God(628). Moses,

therefore, Joshua, Amos, and Habakkuk, were the prophets of Jaldabaoth;

Samuel, Nathan, Jonah, and Micah of Jao; Elijah, Joel, and Zachariah of

Sabaoth; Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel of Adonai; Tobias and

Haggai of Elohei; Micah and Nahum of Horeus; Ezra and Zephaniah of

Astaphæus(629).

But here again Wisdom, or Prunicus, interfered, and turned these prophets

into her own instruments, causing them to speak of the Supreme Being, and

of the Christ above, who was to descend upon earth. These announcements

from the mouth of their own prophets so alarmed the Princes, the posterity

of Jaldabaoth, that they left her at liberty to cause him, not knowing

what he did, to send forth two men, one, John the Baptist, the other,

Jesus(630). For having found no rest below, she had returned in penitence

to her mother, the Holy Spirit, the first woman, and called upon her for

help. Whereupon the Holy Spirit petitioned the Supreme Father that the

Christ might descend to her aid: of which, when she was aware, she

inspired the prophets to speak; and likewise prepared John to announce his

coming, and Jesus by means of her son Jaldabaoth, the God of this world,

to be his receptacle upon earth(631).

The Christ therefore descended through the seven heavens(632), taking upon

him the likeness of their children, and drew out from them their virtue,

so that all the supernal light with which they were imbued returned to

him; and having arrived in this world united himself to Wisdom, his

sister, and in union with her descended upon Jesus, who thenceforward

begun to work miracles. Upon this Jaldabaoth and his posterity united to

kill him; whereupon the Christ and Wisdom left him, and returned to the

upper sphere; not however deserting him altogether; for the Christ sent

down upon him a power by which he rose again, clothed with a spiritual

body(633). But after this, although he remained on earth eighteen months,

he wrought no miracle, (as neither did he before his baptism,) being

forsaken by the Christ and Wisdom. Yet he was in a certain degree

inspired, and taught these things to a few of his disciples(634).

At the end of eighteen months he was taken up into heaven, where the

Christ placed him(635) on the right hand of his father Jaldabaoth, though

without his knowledge, where his business is to receive the souls of those

who know these doctrines, viz. those who are imbued with the heavenly

light. By this means Jaldabaoth will by degrees lose the whole of that

which he originally possessed, and be left entirely earthly and material;

whilst the whole of the light will be withdrawn from the world and its

creators; and then will be the consummation of all things (636).

Section VI. Valentinus.

But none of the Gnostic leaders, excepting perhaps Marcion, obtained so

high a pre‐eminence as VALENTINUS, who drew out a kind of eclectic system,

and thus became the founder of a new school: at least Irenæus represents

the matter so completely in this light, that he classes all the others

together by the general name of Gnostics(637), in contradistinction to

Valentinus and his school.

Report(638) makes him an Ægyptian by birth, and Tertullian expressly

informs us(639) that he was originally a Christian; and indeed a person of

such eminence in the Church that he aspired to the office of Bishop. But

his mind was tinged with the Platonism(640) which was so prevalent in

Alexandria, the place of his education: and it did not happen to him as to

Justin and Clement, in whom the truth moulded their philosophical notions,

and clad them in a Christian garb; for being disappointed in the object of

his ambition, he showed how wisely the Church had acted in rejecting him,

by giving himself thenceforth, like Arius, to the propagation of error. As

he could not be a bishop, he would be a father of heresy.

He took for his foundation, as it would seem(641), the difficulty of

explaining the origin of evil consistently with holding the perfection of

God. He was thence led to make matter co‐eval with the Creator, and to

declare that all the defects of created things arise from that portion of

matter which he left untouched in the work of creation, as unfit for his

use. This idea he doubtless borrowed from the Platonic philosophy: but how

from this he passed into the absurdities of Gnosticism we are not

informed. We only learn from Irenæus that he fashioned them into a new

system. It is curious, however, that he is said by his followers to have

derived his notions from a disciple of St. Paul(642), and that he

endeavoured to represent them as perfectly consistent with the

Scriptures(643). He had attained such a degree of notoriety before the

year 142, in which Justin Martyr offered his First Apology to Antoninus

Pius, that Justin therein speaks of having written that book against all

the heresies(644), to which Tertullian is believed to refer when he

mentions Justin amongst those who had written against Valentinus(645). And

this agrees with what Irenæus says(646), that he came to Rome in the time

of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and continued to the time of Anicetus.

For whether we take the Chronology of Eusebius(647), who places his coming

to Rome in the year 141, or third of Antoninus, or that of Eutychius,

favoured by Bishop Pearson(648) who makes Hyginus contemporary with

Adrian, this would equally agree with Justin having already written

against him in 142: for he made himself known in his own country as an

opposer of the truth before he came to Rome(649). Whatever may be thought

of the precise year at which he came to that city, he remained there

fifteen or twenty years, for he continued to the episcopate of Anicetus,

and retained some character for piety and correctness of faith up to that

period(650). Thenceforward, however, he cast off all such pretensions, and

retiring to Cyprus, taught without disguise all the impieties his system

naturally led to(651).

It has so happened that Irenæus did not write directly against him, but

against his followers: and as every disciple held himself capable of

improving upon the system of his instructor, that which the Bishop of

Lyons gives in full detail differs in some particulars from that taught by

Valentinus himself. It was in fact more nearly that of Ptolemy, his most

noted follower(652): but still Ptolemy had some peculiarities of his

own(653). Yet Irenæus has preserved to us the leading features of the

scheme as taught by Valentinus, and by their help, and that of a fragment

preserved by Epiphanius(654), which corresponds with what Irenæus has told

us, (although Bishop Pearson rightly contends that it is not the work of

the heretical leader himself). I will endeavour to place it before my

readers.

Valentinus then taught, according to Irenæus, that all things sprung from

one primeval pair, the Ineffable and Silence(655): the latter being

according to the fragment the Thought of the former or his Grace, but

called Silence more correctly, because she accomplished every thing by

simple _desire_ without utterance. From these, according to Valentinus,

sprung another pair, the Father(656) and the Truth: the former of whom the

fragment makes to emanate from the Unbegotten Original and Silence, by her

desire; the latter from herself and the Father, by some mysterious union

of the _lights_ from each; so that their offspring was a _true_ image of

herself and thence derived her name. Truth, therefore, by a like

mysterious union with her Father, produces a tetrad of two pairs, the Word

and the Life, Man and the Church. Subsequently the Holy Spirit was sent

forth either by the Truth or by the Church, (for upon that point the Old

Translator of Irenæus and Epiphanius differ,) to examine the Æons, and to

make them fruitful in the produce of truth(657).

So far Irenæus and the fragment correspond, excepting that the latter

places Man and the Church first(658): but from this point there appears

nothing more in common, and as henceforth there is a general coincidence

between Valentinus and his followers, I shall give the scheme as it

appears in the first book of Irenæus, mentioning the variations where they

occur.

It may be however proper to notice this radical difference between the

heresiarch and his disciples, that he considered all these Æons, as they

were called, or Eternal Essences, as merely feelings, affections, and

motions of the one unseen, infinite First Cause, whereas they regarded

them as so many personal beings(659).

The last mentioned tetrad then, knowing themselves to have been sent forth

to the glory of the unbegotten Father, desired to glorify him by their own

act. Wherefore the Word and the Truth sent forth ten Æons, called the

Profound and Mixture, the Ever‐youthful and Union, the Self‐existent and

Pleasure, the Immoveable and Commixture, the Only‐begotten and the

Blessed: whilst Man and the Church sent forth twelve, called the Paraclete

and Faith, the Paternal and Hope, the Maternal and Charity, Aïnus (the

Eternal Mind, or as it is in the Latin Æons, or Praise) and Comprehension,

the Ecclesiastical and Blessedness, the Desired and Wisdom(660).

These thirty Æons, consisting of twelve, and ten, and eight, composed what

they called the Fulness(661): and Valentinus differed from his followers

in placing a barrier between the First Cause and the others(662); which

probably is to be explained by his saying that they were not, like him,

real beings, but merely qualities or emanations. Irenæus was probably the

first person who published their names: for the Valentinians prided

themselves on their being a secret, hidden from all but the initiated. The

names, however, were differently stated by later Valentinians(663), and

were in all probability altered on set purpose whenever they became known.

Of these thirty, the Only‐begotten or Father alone knew the nature of the

Great Father of all: the rest desired to know their origin, but knew him

not: and although the Only‐begotten was desirous of revealing him to them,

Silence restrained him(664). A new state of things, however, arose from

the restlessness of the last of the Æons, namely Wisdom; who, under the

pretext of affection for the unknown First Parent, but in reality through

venturesome curiosity, reached forth into the fathomless height and depth,

in a state of extreme excitement and anxiety, and would have been

reabsorbed into the original substance, but for the interposition of a

power called the Barrier, which prevented her farther progress, and

brought her back to herself; but at the same time kept up a perpetual

separation between her and the Father, to which she originally

belonged(665).

Valentinus then taught that Wisdom, being thus separated from Theletos,

became the mother of the Christ, producing him from the remembrance of the

better things or superior beings she had left, but with a kind of shadow

attached to him, derived from her fallen condition; and by that means

emptied herself of her spiritual substance. Whereupon he, having become

possessed of it, cut off from him the shadow, and returned aloft into the

Fulness, leaving his mother under the shadow he rejected. In this still

more degraded condition, Valentinus makes her to have produced a son, who

became the Creator, and whom he regards as complete ruler of all things

subordinate to him(666).

His followers, however, improved, as they thought, upon this part of his

scheme. They personified the longing of Wisdom, making it her offspring,

comprising in it all the feelings of admiration and wonder, of sorrow, and

fear, and perplexity, under which she had laboured(667). They represent

the Barrier personally, as sent down at the intercession of the Word or

Only‐begotten, and give him the appellations of the Stake or Cross, the

Redeemer, the Limiter, the Reconciler(668). They affirm that by his agency

Wisdom was freed from the consequences of her vain search after her

original, and restored to her spouse and to the Fulness, whilst her

longing was separated from the Fulness(669).

At this crisis, to prevent another commotion amongst the Æons, by the will

of the Supreme Father, the Mind or Only‐begotten produced another pair,

the Christ and the Holy Spirit; the former of whom gave them fully to

understand that it was impossible to comprehend the First Cause, but that

what could be comprehended of him was revealed in the Only‐begotten, whom

he taught them to contemplate(670); whilst the latter put them all upon an

equality with each other, and made them all, according to their sex,

Minds, Words, Men, and Christs, or Truths, Lives, Churches, and Spirits.

By this means they were reduced to a state of repose, and betook

themselves to magnify the Great First Father. In token whereof they all

united to produce one perfect being, Jesus, called also the Saviour, the

Christ, the Word, and the All, together with angels his attendants(671).

But we must return to the personified Longing of Wisdom, whom we shall

have to know henceforth under the name of Achamoth(672), which is merely a

corruption of the Hebrew word for wisdom, חכמות, _Chokmoth_, or the same

word in some kindred dialect, omitting the aspirate ח. She, it must be

remembered, was separated from the Celestial Fulness by Ὅρος, the personal

Barrier, the Σταυρὸς or Stake. But the Christ took pity on her, and

reaching forth over the Barrier, (διὰ τοῦ Σταυροῦ ἐπεκταθεὶς, a strange

perversion and accommodation of evangelical expressions to their system,)

gave her a _natural_ life, and left with her a _savour_ of immortality,

but did not communicate to her that knowledge, which in their system is

the principle of _spiritual_ life. What he did leave, however, worked its

effect. It led her to seek after him who had deposited it in her, and

being restrained by the Barrier, she sustained various feelings, sorrow,

and fear, and consternation, all accompanied by ignorance of all above

her, and a perpetual turning towards him who had given her life, and

pleasure in thinking of the glimpse of light which had been permitted to

her(673). From the tumult within her sprung various productions; being

however in the whole, the Creator of the world and all created things, of

which we shall see more hereafter(674).

She had scarcely recovered from this state of perturbation, when the

Christ sent down to her the Paraclete; not the offspring of Man and the

Church, but that perfect being produced by the Æons conjointly, called

likewise the Saviour(675), having power given him over all things below,

and accompanied by his angels. He separated her from all the products of

her perturbation, and endued her with that knowledge which before she

possessed not. He likewise separated her productions definitely into two

species of substance, one radically bad, the other capable of being either

good or evil; the one material, the other animate; to which she speedily

added another, spiritual in its nature, conceived from joyful

contemplation of the angel‐attendants of the Saviour(676).

From this period she begins to be herself an active fashioner of her

productions. With the _spiritual_ seed she could not meddle, because it

was equal to herself: but from the _animate_(677) substance she first

formed the actual Creator of all earthly things, called likewise God the

Father, the Saviour, the King of all, the Mother’s Father, the

Fatherless(678). By him she, or rather the Saviour through her, fashioned

all things here below, from the two substances, animate and material:

first the seven heavens, who are also seven angels(679), then the earth

and man(680), and all the elements and creatures, and lastly the spirits

of wickedness, of whom the prince of this world was the chief(681). Of

these man was a compound of the animate and the material(682). All these

the Creator made, not knowing what he did; and so his mother Achamoth,

without his knowledge, infused into the man which he had made, that

spiritual seed of which I have before spoken(683), which is the Church,

(or rather the Calling, ἐκκλησία,) an image of the Ecclesia above(684).

It is not however to be supposed that all men have a share of this seed of

election. It is only partially possessed. Those who have it not may be

saved by faith and good works, those who have it are necessarily saved,

and are incapable of being corrupted by any action or course of life. To

the former class belong Churchmen, (Christians) to the latter

Gnostics(685). The natural consequences followed, such as I have detailed

before, with more or less of disguise, according to the character or

circumstances of the professors of such doctrines. Some did openly

whatever they felt inclined to, others went more warily to work: but the

result every where was the same, the free indulgence of the sensual

passions, with all their lamentable consequences; and those so much the

more fatal, as they were accompanied by a profession of superior knowledge

and purity(686).

We have mentioned one Jesus already: but they likewise professed to

believe in the Jesus of the Gospel. They taught that the Creator produced

a son, unspiritual like himself, and that he was sent into the world by

the Virgin Mary, as a mere vehicle, such as a water‐pipe is to water; that

he was(687) clad in a body different from that of others; that when he was

baptized, the Jesus before mentioned descended upon him in the form of a

dove; and that he was likewise impregnated by Achamoth with the spiritual

seed. Of these four portions of his nature only the two former suffered;

the Saviour having quitted him when he was delivered up to Pilate(688).

The winding up of this state of things is to take place when all the

spiritual seed has become perfect in knowledge. Then Achamoth and the

spiritual portion of every Gnostic will be elevated into the Fulness: the

Creator, the animal souls of the Gnostics, with the souls of those who

have been saved by faith and good works, will be raised to the

intermediate heaven; and then the hidden fire will burst forth from this

lower world and consume those souls which have not attained to salvation

together with all material things, and with them will be reduced to

nothing(689).

The most remarkable feature in the scheme of Valentinus was his treatment

of the Scriptures. He did not, like some of his predecessors, speak with

contempt of them, as having proceeded from an imperfect Being. He did not

like others reject the whole New Testament, as a figment of the “natural

men,” as they called the orthodox, and substitute apocryphal writings in

their place: nor did he again, like others, reject such portions of the

Scriptures as militated strongly against their views. He professed to

receive the whole of the Gospels and Apostolical writings, but he

accommodated the Scripture to his views. Tertullian indeed(690) uses very

different terms; viz. that he did not accommodate the Scripture to his

views, but his views to the Scripture. It was certainly his endeavour to

_appear_ so to do; and accordingly he adopted Scripture _language_ to a

very great extent, and no doubt professed, like all modern teachers of

false doctrine, to find all his doctrine in the Scripture: so that I

believe we have only one instance of his reading a passage differently

from the Church(691). Indeed he reproached the orthodox for not having

preserved the true meaning: or rather looked down upon them as being

naturally incapable of receiving it; being not spiritual, but natural and

carnal.

It was, no doubt, in this way that he kept up that character for faith and

piety, of which Epiphanius speaks, and to which Tertullian alludes(692).

Irenæus has given us numerous instances in which he and his followers

quoted the Scriptures as supporting their own doctrine(693): but they will

be found to be either forced accommodations of numbers and names, or

violent perversions of the letter of Scripture, or mystical

interpretations put upon it in such a way as that it may almost be made to

mean anything. The success of such interpretations was of course aided by

the equally unnatural accommodations of Scripture customary with the

orthodox, at least those of the Alexandrian school. There are, likewise,

some fragments of his preserved by Clement of Alexandria(694), which have

the same tone as the system generally; but one of these(695), in which he

compares the heart occupied by divers evil passions to an inn or

caravanserai defiled by travellers, appears at first sight so

unobjectionable, that, out of the connection in which it stands, one

should hardly suspect any evil meaning. It is however intended to teach

the Gnostic tenet, that the heart of the spiritual man is no more a

partaker of the evil wrought in it by evil spirits, than a caravanserai in

the nuisances committed by every wanton traveller. This is evidently

another, and a less offensive way of stating that to the spiritual mind no

passion can communicate any permanent pollution, and that the elect are

not to be called to account for what they fall into in this world: and its

inoffensiveness at first sight is no bad illustration of the habit Irenæus

charges them with of teaching their heresies by stealth(696).

Section VII. Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, And Marcus.

Irenæus mentions several successors of Valentinus, some more at length

than others.

Respecting SECUNDUS, who was the contemporary and disciple of

Valentinus(697), he is very brief, merely informing us that he divided the

first ogdoad into two tetrads, the right and the left, which he

denominated _light_ and _darkness_: and that he asserted that the Being

which erred and was forsaken by the upper powers was not one of the

thirty, but one of their productions(698). The latter idea would appear to

have for its object to remove the origin of evil further from the First

Cause: but the former seems to be a contradiction to it, as it brings

darkness into the Pleroma.

EPIPHANES, whose name the old translator has chosen to render by _Clarus_,

(probably not understanding it to be a proper name,) was the son of

Carpocrates(699), but attached himself to the followers of Secundus(700).

He died very young, being according to Clem. Alex. only seventeen at the

time of his death, and was honoured as a god by the people of Cephalonia,

the birth‐place of his mother and his own place of residence. He is

identified with the CLARUS of the old translator of Irenæus; 1. because he

is commonly reckoned next to Secundus(701); 2. because _Clarus_ is a

literal rendering of Ἐπιφανής; 3. because the doctrines ascribed to

Epiphanes are the same as those which are attributed in Irenæus to

Clarus(702). He differed from his predecessors in not giving any _name_

(properly speaking) to the First Cause, but in calling him Μονότης, and

his companion Ἐνότης, which may perhaps be rendered Soleness and Unity.

These, he said, constituted only one being. This duopersonal Being

produced, without separation from himself, a beginning of all things,

comprehensible, but unbegotten and invisible, called the Monad, and with

him another power denominated the One. This was his first tetrad; but in

the rest he does not appear to have differed from the other

Valentinians(703).

PTOLEMY was a Valentinian, and is said to have been a disciple of Secundus

and Epiphanes. It would appear from Irenæus that the system which he

states at length, and which I have detailed above, was his actual

system(704). Epiphanius indeed, quoting Irenæus(705), makes him say that

this heretic and his disciples ascribed two wives to Bythus, Thought and

Will, from whom he made the rest of the Æons to proceed. But it is evident

from the version of the Ancient Interpreter that the actual words of

Irenæus were Οἱ περὶ Πτολεμαῦον, which may mean either Ptolemy or his

followers, and as Tertullian ascribes this tenet to his disciples,

desirous of improving upon their master, we may safely conclude that

Epiphanius does not intend to attribute it distinctly to Ptolemy, but

either to him or to his followers.

Of the followers of Ptolemy, Irenæus mentions the tenets of COLORBASUS

particularly. He does not indeed name him, but Epiphanes(706) and

Theodoret(707) have supplied that defect, nor is there any contradictory

statement on the subject. He taught that the first ogdoad of Æons did not

spring successively one pair from another, but that the first four after

the First Cause and his Thought were created at once when the Forefather

determined upon giving forth some being, that became the Father; as what

he emitted was true, it was called the Truth: when he wished to manifest

himself, then came Man; and those whom he then foresaw were the Church.

Then Man spoke the Word, and from Man and the Church came Life(708).

MARCUS is mentioned by Irenæus apparently as a disciple of Ptolemy, or at

least as having made his system after him(709): and as Tertullian(710)

speaks of him in the same terms, we may safely take that as the sense of

Irenæus. We find him first in Asia Minor, recompensing the hospitality of

a deacon with whom he lodged by corrupting his wife, who for a good while

followed him, but was at length brought back to the Church by the

perseverance of the Christians(711). Where his subsequent residence was we

do not learn. The circumstance which brought him more particularly under

the notice of Irenæus was that his opinions and the consequent depravity

of morals had spread to the neighbourhood of Lyons(712). The practical

mischief appears first to have attracted his attention, and he was thence

led to inquire into the speculative system which produced such fruits.

Both the one and the other shall be noticed in their order.

The scheme differed in reality very little in its frame‐work from that of

Valentinus, Ptolemy, and Colorbasus; the latter of whom Irenæus represents

him as more particularly agreeing with(713); but it was differently

dressed up. Instead of making the Fulness a system of personal beings or

emanations, he made it the _name_ of the Great First Cause, consisting of

thirty letters, instead of as many Æons, divided into four syllables, of

which the two first consisted of four letters each, the third of ten, and

the fourth of twelve. This name originated in the wish of the Great Father

to reveal himself. He therefore opened his mouth, and spoke a Word like

himself, which was Ἀρχὴ, the Beginning; (this was the first syllable;)

then a second, a third, and a fourth. What the three latter are we are not

told: but they have continued to sound on from that day to the present,

and will continue so to do, until they all unite in sounding forth

together the same letter, when the consummation of all things will take

place. About this matter, however, there is some obscurity, the passage

not being very intelligible(714).

It would be tedious beyond measure to enter into the application of this

particular notion to the general Gnostic scheme: but he held a particular

doctrine in regard to Jesus, which it will be proper to mention. He

thought that he was the joint production of Man and the Church, the Word

and Life; but that in producing him the angel Gabriel took the place of

the Word, the Holy Spirit of Life, the Power of the Most High of Man, and

the Virgin Mary of the Church: that the Supreme Father chose him in the

womb to manifest himself in him by means of the Word, who therefore

descended upon him at his baptism in the form of a dove(715).

I come now to the _practice_ of Marcus. He openly pretended supernatural

powers, communicated to him by a familiar spirit, which he flattered his

followers, chiefly women, by professing to communicate to them(716). The

Eucharist he found especially suited to his purpose, and was the first

apparently who taught any thing like transubstantiation. He used, like the

Church, wine mingled with water, but pretended to bring down into it by

his prayers, the blood of the supernal Grace; and accordingly, lengthening

out his devotion, that the chemical agents, which he doubtless employed,

might have time to act, he at length produced the liquid, of a much deeper

colour than when he began his incantations. In another of his tricks he

gave his female friends a part. He requested one of them to take the

mingled cup, and to offer the prayer of benediction; whereupon he poured

the contents of it into a much larger cup, which he himself held, which,

as he pronounced the mystical blessing upon the woman he employed,

gradually became full with the contents of the smaller, and at length

overflowed(717). This again was, in all probability, effected by some

chemical agent, deposited in the bottom of the larger cup, and producing a

gradual effervescence: but in those days of ignorance it stamped the

worker of such wonders as something more than ordinary man.

In communicating, as he pretended, to his devotees a portion of the grace

he possessed, he purposely contrived, in the most subtle manner, to

inflame their sensual desires, and to direct them towards himself, without

using a single word or act to which he could not immediately give a

mystical meaning; so that, if his wishes did not succeed, there was

nothing with which he could be charged, without subjecting the person who

so charged him to the imputation of having put an unholy meaning upon holy

things. And if they did succeed, the victim, if not conscience‐seared,

would feel self‐corrupted and self‐betrayed. In this way he became master,

not only of the persons, but also of the substance of many women of wealth

and station(718). To make his arts, however, the more successful, he

administered to them inflammatory drugs(719): and still more to guard

himself from their defection, under the terror of conscience, and the

dread of future judgment, he taught them a form of words, to be addressed

to their mother Achamoth, whom he represents as seated with God on his

throne, by means of which they would be rendered invisible to the Judge,

and pass unhurt to their heavenly spouses the angels(720).

Such a scheme as this was too palatable to human nature not to have many

followers; and accordingly it found its way to Lyons, where Irenæus was

bishop. The exact nature of it was first learnt by the confessions of his

victims and those of his followers, when, recovering from their delusion,

they wished to be readmitted to the Church. One particular instance I have

already mentioned, of his having seduced the wife of a deacon in Asia

Minor, with whom he had lodged. This person remained with him for a long

time; but, being at length restored by the unwearied efforts of the

Christians, spent the rest of her life bewailing the pollution she had

sustained. This was not the only instance of repentance; but most appear

to have dreaded the public acknowledgment which was then required in the

case of gross transgression, and thus never to have returned(721).

Section VIII. Gnostic Redemption.

There is one feature of the Gnostic scheme common to almost every variety

of the Gnostics, which was reserved for a separate detail; and which

Irenæus introduces immediately after the account of the Marcosian heresy,

having probably been able to obtain a more perfect account of their views

on that subject, than of those of any other sect. That feature is their

ordinance of _Redemption_(722); which was in fact the initiating rite of

their perfect adepts(723), and without denying baptism, threw it into the

back ground, and thus virtually annulled it(724). The professed object of

this rite was the regeneration of those who underwent it, preparatory to

their entering into the Fulness(725). The outward form of it was various,

according to the fancy of the mystagogue(726). Some celebrated it as a

marriage; others made it a baptism in water, with varying forms of

words(727); others again poured a mixture of oil and water upon the head

of the person who received it; whilst some declared, that the blessing

being purely spiritual, all outward signs were unavailing and impertinent;

that knowledge was in fact redemption, and that those, and those alone,

who were perfect in knowledge were partakers of it(728).

In most cases the Redemption was effected during the lifetime of those who

were made partakers of it; but the dead were not excluded. The rite was

administered immediately after death.

In all cases the effect of it was to enable the initiated to escape the

power of the Creator and his angels, and, leaving their souls behind them,

to enter into the Fulness(729).

Section IX. Reflections Upon Gnosticism.

Gnosticism is now well‐nigh forgotten, or noticed only by those who are

led to an acquaintance with it either by its connexion with certain

passages in the New Testament, or by a systematic study of the early

Fathers of the Church. And yet it existed in the world, and spread over

the civilized portions of it as a system of philosophy at a time when

heathen speculation had attained its highest refinement, and Christianity

had introduced certainty to take the place of speculation. But that it

should have taken hold on the minds of men to such an extent and at such a

time, is surely one of the most unaccountable facts in the history of the

human mind. To us, even the Platonic system would appear so much more

rational and intelligible, and the Christian doctrine so much more simple

and natural, and, if I may so say, manly, that in their presence one

wonders what there could have been to recommend Gnosticism. The Grecian

schemes were so many efforts of unassisted reason to find out truth by

simple speculation. They could therefore never be propounded as

certainties, but only as probabilities. They accordingly rested on their

probability, and struck out many truths. They bear about them the air of

the conclusions of men searching after truth, and having in some degree

attained it. Christianity, on the other hand, professed to be a revelation

from above. It did not pretend to speculate or to reason; it taught its

doctrines as infallible truths, and supported its teaching by miracles,

and an appeal to fulfilled prophecy. Gnosticism was like neither. It was

in fact gratuitous speculation, founded upon nothing but the fact of a

great difficulty, which human reason had never yet solved, the causation

of evil; but it claimed no support from reason; it propounded no proofs;

but put itself forward as the revealed solution of this difficulty. It

wrought miracles, indeed, which might have served where the Christian

miracles were unknown, but poor and weak indeed to put in competition with

them, for they were mere juggles. They answered no beneficial end; they

were over in a few minutes; they submitted themselves to no daily and

hourly proof; and although professing to support a higher and purer God

than was ever before thought of, they were of the same nature as those

practised by heathen sorcerers. But to have solved this great difficulty,

the system ought at least to have been uniform, or at most progressive. No

teacher should have contradicted another, however much he might improve

upon him. And yet this was far from being the case. The various successive

teachers not only pulled down what their predecessors had set up, but even

contemporary leaders contradicted each other. This would have been

perfectly consistent if they had set up as mere speculators; but they

claimed a sort of inspiration; nay, whilst setting aside the Gospel, they

claimed support from the Gospel; whilst making higher pretensions than

they allowed the Apostles, they professed to have a tradition received

from the Apostles; whilst utterly overthrowing the religion of Christ,

they appealed to his words and teaching as supporting them.

But although borrowing support from Christianity, it was not itself in any

sense a religion. It taught no present devotion towards any superior

being. It had no offerings, no prayers, still less any expiations.

Although some of its teachers practised rites borrowed from the eucharist,

they had no religious object. They were mere juggles. Although the _idea_

of glorifying the beings above entered into the system, yet it affected

only the beings above man, or man after he quitted this state. It had no

place on earth. This was a place of discipline, or training, for a state

in which he was to glorify the great First Cause; but he had nothing to do

with glorifying him here. The great object of man here was _knowledge_. In

this respect it was analogous to the Grecian philosophies; for they had no

connection with religion, but were rather antagonists to it. They tended

to overthrow the heathen superstitions, but they furnished nothing to

replace them. They taught, it may be, moral duties; but it was not upon

any principles of religion, but rather of social benefit. They attained to

better notions on the unity and nature of God than were entertained by

their compatriots, but they led not to a purer worship of him. At best

they refined and mysticized the mythology and religious observances of the

old religions. In this respect, then, of being unconnected with religion,

it was like the philosophical systems of its own and former times; but it

went further than they in being essentially _irreligious_, by placing the

perfection of man in _knowledge_, and that only. By this means the

necessity of religion of any kind was totally done away. Curiosity was

substituted for devotion, and unbounded liberty for duty, whether to God

or to man.

Curiosity being thus canonized, it is remarkable that the Gnostic system

had baits for almost every description of it. It is curiosity, the desire

of knowing what others know, fully as much as passion and appetite, which

leads men into the various descriptions of vice; and this species of

curiosity was not only allowed, but even sanctioned and stimulated. Men

were told that it was the express destiny of every one who was to be

perfect, to know everything that could be known in this world; and not

only that, but that if a person failed of acquiring the requisite

knowledge in one lifetime, his soul must pass into another and another

body, until it had arrived at the necessary degree of information. It is

true that this implied, in its literal meaning, the knowledge of good as

well as of evil. But it requires little acquaintance with human nature to

tell us in what sense it would be most commonly taken. And if any scruples

still remained, they were removed by the doctrine that all actions were

naturally indifferent, and that nothing but human opinion, or the

arbitrary will of a tyrannical being, the Jewish God, had ever made any

such thing as moral distinctions. Thus a vicious curiosity became a

_duty_, if such a term had been allowable in Gnosticism; or, at all

events, that man who did not foster and indulge it to the utmost, was

fighting against his own interest.

There is another kind of curiosity, which has governed many in all ages,

and which is not even yet extinct, and that is, a desire to be acquainted

with future or unknown circumstances, or to possess a power beyond the

reach of ordinary men. There have been always those who have professed

themselves possessors of this supernatural knowledge, and of course others

who have desired either to possess it or to witness and profit by its

exercise. From this desire has arisen the whole of magic from the

beginning, and the science of astrology in particular. Accordingly, this

was a marked feature in many of the Gnostic teachers, that they laid claim

to magical powers; and herein they differed from the heathen philosophers,

and became the antagonists of the Christian apostles. Simon Magus, for

instance, who is generally reckoned the first Gnostic leader, was a

magician, and there is great reason to suspect that his faith was more a

reliance on the Apostles, on the supposition of their having some deeper

art than his own, than the faith of the heart in the principles of the

Gospel.

But there is another class of persons who could neither be imposed on by

the pretensions to supernatural power, nor the seductions of evil

appetites, whose cast of character is altogether intellectual, and whose

temptations must therefore be intellectual. The attention of such persons

had in all ages been directed to the unseen things of creation, the

invisible springs of all earthly motions and actions, the secret agencies

of nature, the nature of the Great Original of all things, the methods of

his providential government, the time and manner of the creation, the

origin of evil, the future state of mankind after their departure from

this earthly scene. Questions of this kind had engaged the curiosity of

minds of the higher order ever since civilization began, and no system

could find acceptance with them which offered no solution of such

questions. Gnosticism accordingly furnished food for the curiosity of

these, and that in greater abundance than any other system yet invented.

Besides the Gentile speculatists, there was also the philosophical Jew,

who had become acquainted with the Grecian learning, and had thus come to

endeavour to account, upon new principles, for the economy of the divine

government under the law; partly for his own satisfaction, partly to

render it palatable to his heathen friends. Two points in his law would

present difficulty: first, the endless forms and ceremonies considered

with reference to God, who, being a spirit, would require a spiritual

worship, (for this is a truth which this class of Jews were fully sensible

of,) together with the prohibitions of various animals; and secondly, the

severities which God himself exercised and taught their forefathers to

exercise against idolaters. And no doubt many Jews of this class were

become practically unbelievers by speculating upon points which their

forefathers implicitly received and devoutly practised.

There was again another class; viz. Christians by birth and education,

brought up in leisure, and given to study, who, never having received the

Gospel humbly and practically, became infected with the unsettled spirit

of speculative inquiry. These would see the apparent incongruities between

the law and the Gospel, especially in the spirit in which each was

administered; and instead of being contented to be ignorant of that which

had not been revealed, would endeavour to form some system independent of

revelation, by which to account for these incongruities. To these two

classes we shall see that Gnosticism also adapted itself; and indeed to

the latter it would be specially adapted in the licentiousness of its

morals. For being brought up without their own choice in a system of great

strictness, at which their nature perhaps rebelled, and which they had

themselves never heartily embraced; and yet not liking to renounce it on

the distinct avowal of a love of vice, they would gladly close with a

scheme which gave unbounded license the character of superior wisdom, and

even of duty itself.

We see then what there was in the character of the times to prepare men

for such a system as Gnosticism. But it did not grow up at once into all

its completeness. It developed itself by degrees, as men were prepared for

it; and when we have considered it in its leading features, we can

scarcely fail to acquiesce in the view of it taken by the Christian

writers contemporary with it; viz. that it was a scheme specially

concocted by the author of evil, as antagonist to Christianity.

Simon Magus, as all agree, was the first teacher of Gnosticism; and when

he first appeared in that character in Samaria, it is obvious that he

could have known but little of the Gospel, and this may account for the

little notice taken of it in his system. He came as the great power of

God, that is, as God manifested on earth; and he wrought pretended

miracles in confirmation of his pretensions. It is remarkable that none of

his successors made any such pretension as this, although they too, at

least some of them, professed miraculous power. He was therefore the

antagonist of Christ; strictly _Antichrist_, in a higher sense than any

other. He taught that the God of the Jews was not truly God, but only,

like the Jupiter of heathenism, one of a set of angelic powers; that the

Supreme God had nothing to do with the origination of evil further than

that he had created those angelic powers from whom it had sprung; nay,

that he had not created them directly, but by his _thought_, which, taking

a personal character, was the actual Creator of these; that therefore the

Supreme Being had nothing to do with anything in this world, excepting in

so far as he had interfered to remedy the mischief occasioned by the

angels. It was in this way that he endeavoured to reconcile the

imperfections of this world with the perfection of God. But he went

further than this; for by making the Creator of this world and the God of

the Old Testament an imperfect being, he in reality denied God, whilst

professing to know more of him than other men.

This part of the system only accounted for physical evil, and such moral

evils as oppression and violence: but moral evil, as we commonly

understand it, he treated in quite a different way; i. e. by denying that

it was evil at all; for he asserted that it was so only through the

tyrannical imposition of the angels. Nay, he even went so far as to assert

that he himself was God, come down from above to rescue men from their

thraldom by teaching them the truth of things; and thus to restore them to

their rightful liberty, by showing them that they might do whatever they

listed, and indeed ought to do so to vindicate his authority, which had

been usurped by the angels. A more plausible scheme of blasphemy and

licentiousness could scarcely have been concocted for the philosophizing

Jew, or the heathen who had looked into Judaism merely as a rival system

of barbarian philosophy. It recognised all the facts of the Old Testament;

but it totally neutralized them, and destroyed altogether the religion

with which they would have appeared to be inseparably blended.

When Christianity began to spread, and Jesus was believed on by

multitudes, and reverenced by many who did not receive him, it became

politic to recognise the Gospel in the same manner in which the Law had

been recognised. Accordingly, the external facts of the life of Jesus were

not disputed, but a new spirit was given to them. Jesus was a

manifestation of the Supreme God, as Simon was; come upon the same errand,

to destroy the Jewish law; and thence an object of hatred to the Jews, who

triumphed so far as to crucify the external body in which he appeared, but

had no power over him who had inhabited it. Here there was just enough of

truth to impose upon a person brought up to believe the Gospel without

really loving it, and falsehood enough altogether to prevent its

reception.

The sketch which I have now traced is the nucleus of Gnosticism. Simon’s

dignifying his paramour with the title of the Thought of the First Cause,

and his figment of her having been in a perpetual state of transmigration,

was no doubt an after thought to cover the grossness which prying minds

might fancy in the great empiric; an end which might not be sufficiently

accomplished by his doctrine that all actions were indifferent.

Whether Simon really invented the first ogdoad of pure emanations from the

Great Father may be doubted; for the testimony to that fact does not

appear sufficiently early, and those who assert it contradict each other

in the names of them. But that he taught that there were Excellences and

Powers, as well as angels, appears from Irenæus. Yet as that author

undertakes to tell the share which Simon had in forming the system, and

certainly attributes the regularity of it to his successors, it appears

most probable that he defined nothing as to the number or functions of

those celestial beings.

The sketch, however, of Simon, to whatever extent he went, was

sufficiently filled up by his successors. In his system of angelic beings

they defined their number, and to a certain extent fixed their functions.

There was at last a body of these formed between the Supreme Being and the

authors of this world, perfect in holiness and obedience. The defection of

one of these was made as much as possible the work of accident. She was

made, according to various schemes, sometimes to be totally excluded from

this perfect society, sometimes to be restored to it again, leaving an

imperfect offspring behind her. From her or her offspring, sprang the

Creator, who is sometimes represented as the chief of seven angels,

sometimes as a peculiar being having the angels under him. The creation of

man is represented as the work of this imperfect being, but the spark of

heavenly life in him as an emanation, more or less direct, from the First

Cause. In this way the scheme became more definite; but from the same

cause it became a set of schemes more or less inconsistent with each

other, but all aiming at having a succession of mysteries to be

communicated by degrees. In this way the minds of men were amused and

tantalized, and prevented from a serious search after truth; whilst if one

scheme was searched to the bottom, and its stock of mysteries exhausted,

there was still another and another refinement to lure him away from the

real truth. There was, however, the uniform tendency to remove the

government of this world from the cognizance of the Supreme Being, and to

represent the author of the law and the prophets as an imperfect, self‐

contradictory, cruel being. There was the same mode of rendering null the

distinction between moral good and evil, by attributing it to opinion, or

custom, or the ordinance of the God of this world. There was the same

attempt to nullify the Gospel, by doing away with the Christian idea of

the incarnate Son of God, and representing the advent of Jesus as a

portion of the Gnostic scheme. For whether Jesus was considered as only

_apparently_ a man, or as _merely_ a man; whether the Saviour dwelt in him

or made use of him; whether it were the Saviour, or the Christ, or the

Only‐begotten, or the Jesus above, who interested himself for the

redemption of the spiritual seed, it all amounted to the same thing in the

end. It abolished the real salvation of the soul; it took away the

incarnation and atonement; it made the Gospel of no effect.

The nature of the _redemption_ it preached was likewise everywhere the

same. It was not a redemption from the dominion of sin, but by denying

that there was any such thing as sin. Whether it taught that the simple

practical knowledge of this fact was all the redemption necessary, or that

some initiatory rite was requisite to give that knowledge, or that a full

knowledge of the Gnostic theory was to be superadded to qualify for

_eternal_ redemption,—whether it led its votaries to defy the God of the

Old Testament, or taught them mystic forms by which to elude him when

sitting in judgment, it all amounted to the same thing. Lewdness of the

grossest kind was denied to be any sin. There were, indeed, some who

embraced the general theory, and with it believed that the flesh, as being

the work of the Creator, was to be denied and mortified in every way, and

who therefore decried marriage(730) itself, and forbad to eat flesh; but

they were the few. The opposite use of the undervaluing of the flesh was

the more popular and the more prevalent.

Hitherto, perhaps, there has appeared but little in common with our own

times; but there were other features of Gnosticism, in which it will

appear to have been the parent of Antinomianism, even that of the most

recent days. If any one is at all familiar with the high Calvinism of

Toplady and his school, he will have found that it strongly resembled the

Gnosticism of the age of Irenæus. It is of the essence of strict Calvinism

to teach that _individuals_ are _inevitably_ destined to salvation; and so

it was in Gnosticism. The spiritual seed must all be brought back again

from earthly degradation; none can fail of being so, first or last. It may

be destined to numerous transmigrations; but the spirit must finally be

wafted upward to the eternal Fulness(731). Again, the spiritual pride and

presumption of the genuine Antinomian is a very observable trait: his

speaking of all as carnal who do not adopt his scheme; his placing

religion not in holiness, but in _knowing_ the truth; his assumption of

superior illumination; his declarations that none but those specially

favoured _are capable_ of knowing the truth; all this is merely a

repetition of Gnosticism. The Gnostic called himself spiritual, and the

Churchman carnal(732); he was the elect and perfect, and the orthodox the

ignorant and simple(733); he derived his very name from his making

_knowledge_ paramount to all other things(734); he declared that none were

capable of receiving his scheme but the spiritual seed(735); that to

others good works were necessary and useful(736), but that their lot,

however praiseworthy, could never be the same as that of the elect(737).

So, again, the abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith is as early

as those times. They declared that faith and love was the sum of their

religion(738); that the law might be a restraint suited to inferior

natures, but that to them it would be a degradation to submit their minds

to its yoke; and that, in fact, whatever acts they might commit, it was

impossible for them either to be polluted by those acts or to fail of

salvation(739). Who would not suppose that the modern ultra‐Calvinist was

the speaker? So again, at that time, as in these days these tenets were

not always taken up as a cloak for licentiousness. Saturninus and Tatian

were extremely correct in their lives; and Valentinus was not accused of

any peculiar immorality: indeed, he long continued nominally a member of

the Church, which, if his conduct had been flagitious, he could not have

done. If they despised the restraints of the moral law, they probably

supposed, like Toplady and others, that they had higher principles, which

would lead them to greater heights of purity: or they were men of a

speculative turn, who took up Gnosticism as a theory, without any

disposition to make that practical use of it which others did, merely

because they were not persons of warm passions. Indeed, if we may judge

from a fragment preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus was rather

a mystic in his religion(740).

There are two or three features in which the Gnostics were the forerunners

of a very different class of errors. Transubstantiation no doubt arose in

time by a natural depravation of the true doctrine of the Eucharist,

through the desire of defining that which Scripture and primitive

tradition had left undefined. But it is curious that a hint of it should

have been struck out by Marcus, one of the magical Gnostics, who, amongst

other arts of legerdemain, hit upon the idea of bringing down into the

wine and water _the blood of the supernal grace_, by means of an

invocation(741). It is equally curious to read in the account of

Carpocrates and his disciples, that they asserted that Pilate had procured

a likeness of Jesus Christ to be taken, and that they set his image

amongst those of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle and the rest, and

decked it with chaplets, and paid to it the selfsame honours which the

heathen paid to their idols(742). Nor is it less remarkable that the

Gnostics in general, when refuted by the Scriptures, should have spoken in

disparagement of them (as I have already pointed out) in terms singularly

corresponding with those sometimes made use of by Roman controversialists:

“They turn to accuse the Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor

of authority; and say that they are at variance with themselves, _neither

can the truth be discovered from them by those who are ignorant of_ THEIR

_tradition_(743).” Coincidences of this kind are at least curious; and the

further we search the more clearly will it appear that the germs of all

subsequent errors appeared in very early times.

[Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.]

FOOTNOTES

1 In his “Doctrine of Scripture and of the Primitive Church upon

Religious Celibacy,” in reply to the author of “Antient

Christianity.”

2 Tertullian (_adv. Valent._ 5.) calls him _omnium doctrinarum

curiosissimus explorator_.

3 _Epist. ad Florinum._ Εῖδον γάρ σε, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ἐν τῇ κάτω Ἀσίᾳ παρὰ

τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ, καὶ πειρώμενον

εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος

γινομένων· αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις, συναύξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἐνοῦνται

αὑτῇ· ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾦ καθεζόμενος

διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς

εἰσόδους, καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου, καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν, καὶ

τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου

συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ τὴν μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων

τὸν Κύριον· καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ

Κυρίου τίνα ἧν ἂ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ἠκηκόει· καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ

καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζώης τοῦ Λόγου

παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος ἀπήγγελλε, πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. Ταῦτα

καὶ τότε διὰ τὸ ἕλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ γεγονὸς σπουδαίως ἤκουον,

ὑπομνηματιζόμενος αὐτὰ οὐκ ἐν χάρτῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ καρδίᾳ· καὶ ἀεὶ

διὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνήσιως αὐτὰ ἀναμαρυκῶμαι.

4 _Adv. Hær._ III. iii. 4. Καὶ Πολύκαρπος δὲ οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων

μαθητευθεὶς, καὶ δυναναστραφεὶς πολλοῖς τοῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν,

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν, ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ

ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ·

(ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, καὶ πάνυ γηραλέος, ἐνδόξως καὶ ἐπιφανέστατα

μαρτυρήσας, ἐξῆλθε τοῦ βίου)· κ. τ. λ.

5 _Ep. ad Flor._

6 _Diss. in Irenæum_, III. § 10, 11.

7 _Auteurs Ecclésiastiques_, tom. i. S. Irenée.

8 The Benedictine Editor: _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 2.

9 _Mémoires_, tom. iii. S. Irenée, art. ii.

10 _Ep. ad Flor._ supra.

11 _Epist._ 53. al. 29. _ad Theodoram viduam_. Refert Irenæus, vir

Apostolicorum temporum, et Papiæ, auditoris Evangelistæ Joannis,

discipulus, Episcopus Ecclesiæ Lugdunensis, quod Marcus quidam, de

Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendens, primum ad Gallias venerit, et

eas partes, per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, suâ doctrinâ

maculaverit, maximeque nobiles fœminas, quædam in occulto mysteria

repromittens, hoc errore seduxerit, magicis artibus et secretâ

corporum voluptate amorem sui concilians: inde Pyrenæum transiens,

Hispanias occuparit; et hoc studii habuerit, ut divitum domos, et in

ipsis fœminas maxime appeteret, quæ ducuntur variis desideriis,

semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes.

Hoc ille scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos; et scripsit in iis

libris, quos adversus omnes hæreses doctissimo et eloquentissimo

sermone composuit.

12 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 2. xv. 6. III. xvii. 4. xxiii. 3. IV. xxvii. 1.

13 See Massuet, _Diss. Præv._ II. § 3.

14 _Diss. in Iren._ IV. 3.

15 Irenæus (IV. xxvii. 1.) calls him _quendam presbyterum qui audierat

ab his qui apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant_.

16 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. Καὶ δὴ διαφωνίας ὑπαρχούσης περὶ τῶν

δεδηλωμένων [sc. Montanus and his disciples] αὖθις οἱ κατὰ τὴν

Γαλλίαν ἀδελφοὶ τὴν ἰδίαν κρίσιν καὶ περὶ τούτων εὐλαβῆ καὶ

ὀρθοδοξοτάτην ὑποτάττουσιν· ἐκθέμενοι καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς

τελειωθέντων μαρτύρων διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς, ἃς ἐν δεσμοῖς ἔτι

ὑπάρχοντες τοῖς ἐπ᾽ Ἀσίας καὶ Φρυγίας ἀδελφοῖς διεχάραξαν· οὐ μὴν

ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἐλευθέρῳ τῷ τότε Ῥωμαίων ἐπισκόπῳ, τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν

εἰρήνης ἕνεκα πρεσβεύοντες.

iv. 1. Οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ μάρτυρες καὶ τὸν Εἰρηναῖον, πρεσβύτερον τότ᾽ ὅντα

τῆς ἐν Λουγδούνῳ παροικίας, τῷ δηλωθέντι κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐπισκόπῳ

συνίστων, πλεῖστα τῷ ἀνδρὶ μαρτυροῦντες, ὡς αἱ τοῦτον ἔχουσαι τὸν

τρόπον δηλοῦσι φωναί.

17 Jerome, _Catalog._ Irenæus Pothini Episcopi, qui Lugdunensem in

Gallia regebat ecclesiam, Presbyter, à Martyribus ejusdem loci ob

quasdam Ecclesiæ quæstiones legatus Romam missus, honorificas super

nomine suo ad Eleutherium Episcopum perfert literas. Postea jam

Pothino prope nonagenario ob Christum martyrio coronato, in locum

ejus substituitur. Constat autem Polycarpi, cujus supra fecimus

mentionem, sacerdotis et martyris, hunc fuisse discipulum. Scripsit

quinque _adversus Hæreses_ libros, et _contra Gentes_ volumen breve,

et _de Disciplina_ aliud, et ad Marcianum fratrem _de Apostolica

prædicatione_, et librum _Variorum tractatuum_, et ad Blastum _de

Schismate_, et ad Florinum _de Monarchia_, sive, quod Deus non sit

conditor malorum, et _de Octava_ egregium commentarium, in cujus

fine significans se Apostolicorum temporum vicinum fuisse, sic

subscripsit:

“Adjuro te qui transcribis librum istum, per Dominum Jesum Christum,

et per gloriosum ejus adventum, quo judicaturus est vivos et

mortuos, ut conferas postquam transcripseris, et emendes illum ad

exemplar, unde scripsisti, diligentissime: hanc quoque obtestationem

similiter transferas, ut invenisti in exemplari.” Feruntur ejus et

aliæ ad Victorem Episcopum Romæ _de quæstione Paschæ_ epistolæ, in

quibus commonet eum, non facile debere unitatem collegii scindere:

siquidem Victor multos Asiæ et Orientis Episcopos, qui decimaquarta

luna cum Judæis pascha celebrabant, damnandos crediderat; in qua

sententia hi qui discrepabant ab illis, Victori non dederunt manus.

Floruit maxime sub Commodo principe, qui Marco Antonino Vero in

imperium successerat.

18 Athen. _Deipnosoph._ xiii. 5. Justin, xliii. 3.

19 Pothinus, the bishop, Attalus, (Περγαμηνὸς τῷ γένει· Euseb. V. i.

7.) Alcibiades, Biblias, Alexander, (Φρὺξ τὸ γένος· ibid. 21.) all

mentioned by Eusebius, besides others recorded in the martyrologies.

20 See note 7, p. 8.

21 _Hist. Eccl._ V. v. 3. Ποθεινοῦ δὴ ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις τῆς ζωῆς ἔτεσιν

ἐνενήκοντα σὺν τοῖς ἐπὶ Γαλλίας μαρτυρήσασι τελειωθέντος, Εἰρηναῖος

τῆς κατὰ Λούγδουνον, ἧς ὁ Ποθεινὸς ἡγεῖτο παροικίας, τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν

διαδέχεται. Πολυκάρπου δὲ τοῦτον ἀκουστὴν γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν νέαν

ἐμανθάνομεν ἡλικίαν.

22 Tillemont, _Mémoires_, Note 1. Sur les Martyrs de Lion.

23 See the Epistle of the Martyrs to Eleutherus; Euseb. V. iv. 1.

Χαίρειν ἐν Θεῷ σε ἐν πᾶσιν εὐχόμεθα καὶ ἀεὶ, πάτερ Ἐλεύθερε. Ταῦτά

σοι τὰ γράμματα προτρεψάμεθα τόν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ κοινωνὸν Εἰρηναῖον

διακόμισαι· καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἔχειν σε αὐτὸν ἐν παραθέσει, ζηλωτὴν

ὄντα τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 2. Εἰ γὰρ ᾕδειμεν τόπον τινὶ

δικαιοσύνην περιποιεῖσθαι, ὡς πρεσβύτερον ἐκκλησίας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐπ᾽

αὐτῷ, ἐν πρώτοις ἃν παρεθέμεθα.

24 _Hist. Eccl._ V. iii. 2. See note 6, p. 7.

25 Tertull. _adv. Praxean_, i. Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus

perversitatis intulit Romæ.... Nam idem tunc Episcopum Romanum,

agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscæ, Maximillæ, et ex ea

agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiæ et Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis

prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, et præcessorum ejus

auctoritates defendendo, coëgit et literas pacis revocare jam

emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Ita

duo negotia diabolo Praxeas Romæ procuravit: prophetiam expulit (we

must remember that Tertullian was a Montanist), et hæresin intulit:

Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. Fructicaverant avenæ

Praxeanæ, hic quoque superseminatæ, dormientibus multis in

simplicitate doctrinæ; traductæ dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam

evulsæ videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione

sua; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos (the orthodox), apud quos

res tunc gesta est. Exinde silentium.... Ita aliquamdiu per

hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit.

26 In his account of Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas.

27 Tom. ii. Note 4. Sur les Montanistes.

28 _Dissertationes Præv._ II. § 8, 9.

29 See Tertullian in loco.

30 _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 1.

31 Euseb. V. i. 7.

32 Euseb. V. xx. 1. Ἐξεναντίας τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης τὸν ὑγιῆ τῆς ἐκκλησίας

θεσμὸν παραχαραττόντων, Εἰρηναῖος διαφόρους ἐπιστολὰς συντάττει· τὴν

μὲν ἐπιγράψας πρὸς Βλάστον περὶ σχίσματος· τὴν δὲ πρὸς Φλωρῖνον περὶ

μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἑἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν· ταύτης γάρ

τοι τῆς γνώμης οὗτος ἐδόκει προασπίζειν· δι᾽ ὂν αὖθις ὑποσυρόμενον

τῇ κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον πλάνῃ, καὶ τὸ περὶ ὀγδοάδος συντάττεται τῷ

Εἰρηναίῳ σπούδασμα· ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐπισημαίνεται τὴν πρώτην τῶν ἀποστόλων

κατειληφέναι ἑαυτὸν διαδοχήν.——ἐν ᾗ γε μὴν προειρήκαμεν πρὸς τὸν

Φλωρῖνον ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ αὗθις τῆς ἅμα Πολυκάρπῳ συνουσίας

αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει λέγων· Τὰ δόγματα, κ. τ. λ.

33 Euseb. _Hist. Eccl._ V. i. 14.

34 Ibid. V. v. 3, supra.

35 By Quesnel (see Tillemont, tom. iii. just at the end of his account

of Irenæus); and by Massuet, _Dissert. Præv._ II. § 12.

36 See note 7, p. 8.

37 See note 4, p. 10.

38 V. xxiii. 2.

39 Bingham, IX. ii. 1.

40 Euseb. V. 22. Τῶν κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν παροικῶν.

41 Athanas. _Apol._ 2. p. 788. Paris, 1527.

42 Bingham, IX. ii. 6.

43 _Hist._ I. 27. Εἰσὶν ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ πόλιν ὡς παροικίαι.

44 _Dissert._ II. § 13‐16.

45 Ruinart. _Act. Mart._ p. 110. cited by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 15.

46 So called to distinguish them from the inhabitants of Galatia.

Theodoret. Dial. i. p. 33. ed. Sirmond:—Εἰρηναῖος τῆς Πολυκάρπου

διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν· ἐγεγόνει δὲ φωστὴρ Γαλατῶν τῶν ἐσπερίων.

47 Id. _Hær. Fab._ p. 189. Τοὺς μέντοι τῶν παλαιῶν αἱρέσεων μύθους ἐκ

τῶν παλαιῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διδασκάλων συνέλεξα, Ἰουστίνου τοῦ

φιλοσόφου καὶ μάρτυρος, καὶ Εἰρηναίου τοῦ τὰ Κέλτικα καὶ

γεωργήσαντος καὶ φωτίσαντος ἔθνη.

48 Anonymus auctor _martyrii S. Ferreoli presbyteri, et Ferruccionis

diaconi, ac sociorum ejus_, apud Surium, tom. viii. ad diem 16.

Junii. Eodem tempore quo summus Sacerdos et Martyr Ecclesiæ

Lugdunensis, S. Irenæus Episcopus Christi, lumen æternum et splendor

justitiæ, publice suam prædicationem in Galliis dederat, et assidue

verbum Domini nostri Jesu Christi gentibus declarârat, Sanctum

Ferreolum Presbyterum, et Ferruccionem Diaconum ad Vesunsensem

civitatem vere ut fundamentum fortissimum ad fundandam supra petram

Christi Ecclesiam misit: et sicut angularis lapis sponsi cœlestis,

et ut margaritæ resplendentes fulgebant, per quos nomen æternum et

splendor gloriæ gentibus, quæ in tenebris jacebant, coruscaret; ut

eorum prædicatione ad Baptismatis gratiam convolarent in quibus erat

mira virtus Christi. In verbo enim et sapientia strenui, vultum

angelicum et Domini servitutibus aptum manifeste populis

demonstrabant. Augebatur Catholica fides, lætabantur de confuso et

victo diabolo quotidie Christiani; qui derelinquentes idola,

sequebantur Christi vestigia. Similiter Sanctus Irenæus Felicem

Presbyterum, Fortunatum, et Achilleum Diaconos, ex suo latere ante

gloriosum martyrium suum Valentiam dirigit in urbem: quibus

ingressis, talem Dominus athletis suis contulit gratiam, ut illa

Paganorum multitudo, quæ in tenebris jacebat, eos plenissimo affectu

diligeret.

49 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 1.

50 Ibid. 15.

51 _Hær. Fab._ I. 23.

52 Tertull. _de Præscript._ 53.

53 _Epist._ 1.

54 _Hist. Eccl._ V. 15. Οἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἤκμαζον, ὧν ἡγεῖτο Φλωρῖνος,

πρεσβυτερίου τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποπεσὼν, Βλάστος τε σὺν τούτῳ

παραπλησίῳ, πτώματι κατεσχημένος· οἳ καὶ πλείους τῆς ἐκκλησίας

περιέλκοντες, ἐπὶ τὸ σφῶν ὑπῆγον Βούλημα· θάτερος ἰδίως περὶ τὴν

ἀλήθειαν νεωτερίζειν πειρώμενος.

55 _Diss._ II. § 59.

56 _Epist. ad Florinum_, supra, p. 2.

57 Euseb. V. 15.

58 _Hist. Eccl._ V. xx. 2‐4.

59 Fragm. ii.

60 Euseb. V. xx. 1.

61 Περὶ Ὀγδοάδος.

62 Euseb. V. xx. 2, and Fragm. i. of the Benedictine edition. Ὀρκίζω σε

τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο, κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἦς ἔρχεται κρῖναι

ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω, καὶ κατορθώσῃς αὐτὸ

πρὸς ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο, ὄθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς· καὶ τὸν ὅρκον

τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς, καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφω.

63 _Adv. Hær._ I. v. 3. οἱ δὲ καὶ ταῖς τῆς σαρκός ἡδοναῖς κατακόρωσ

δουλεύοντες, τὰ σαρκικὰ τοῖς σαρκικοῖς, καὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ τοῖς

πνευματικοῖς ἀποδίδοσθαι λέγουσι. Καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν λάθρα τὰς

διδασκομένας ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην γυναῖκας διαφθείρουσιν, ὡς

πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ ἐνίων αὐτῶν ἐξαπατηθεῖσαι, ἔπειπα ἐπιστρέψασαι γυναῖκες

εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺν τῇ λοιπῇ πλάνῃ καὶ τοῦτο

ἐξωμολογήσαντο. οἱ δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὸ φανερὸν ἀπερυθριάσαντες, ὧν ἂν

ἐρασθῶσι γυναικῶν, ταύτας ἀπ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἀποσπάσαντες, ἰδίας γαμετὰς

ἡγήσαντο. ἄλλοι δὲ αὖ πάλιν σεμνῶς κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς, ὡς μετὰ ἀδελφῶν

προσποιούμενοι συνοικεῖν, προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου ηλέγχθησαν, ἐγκύμονος

τῆς ἀδελφῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ γενηθείσης.

Ib. xiii. 7. Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντες καὶ πράττοντες, καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽

ἡμᾶς κλίμασι τῆς Ῥοδανουσίας, πολλὰς ἐξηπατήκασι γυναῖκας, αἵτινες

κεκαυτηριασμέναι τὴν συνείδησιν, αἱ μὲν καὶ εἰς φανερὸν

ἐξομολογοῦνται, αἱ δὲ δυσωπούμεναι τοῦτο, ἡσυχῆ δέ πως ἑαυτὰς,

ἀπηλπικυῖαι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔνιαι μὲν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἀπέστησαν,

ἔνιαι δὲ ἐπαμφοτερίζουσι, καὶ τὸ τῆς παροιμίας πεπόνθασι, μήτε ἔξω,

μήτε ἔσω οὖσαι, ταύτην ἔχουσαι τὴν ἐπικαρπίαν τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν

τέκνων τῆς γνώσεως.

64 _Adv. Hær._ I. Præf. 3. Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐκ Κελτοῖς

διατριβόντων, καὶ περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων,

λόγων τέχνην, ἣν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν, οὔτε δύναμιν συγγράφεως, ἣν οὐκ

ἠσκήσαμεν, οὔτε καλλωπισμὸν λέξεων, οὔτε πιθανότητα, ἧν οὐκ οἴδαμεν·

ἀλλὰ ἁπλῶς, καὶ ἀληθῶς, καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς τὰ μετὰ ἀγάπης σοι γραφέντα,

μετὰ ἀγάπης σὺ προσδέξῃ· καὶ αὐτὸς αὐξήσεις αὐτὰ παρὰ σεαυτῷ, ἅτε

ἰκανώτερος ἡμῶν τυγχάνων, οἱονεὶ σπέρματα καὶ ἀρχὰς λαβὼν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν,

καὶ ἐν τῷ πλάτει σου τοῦ νοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ καρποφορήσεις τὰ δι᾽ ὀλίγων

ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρημένα, καὶ δυνατῶς παραστήσεις τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ τὰ ἀσθενῶς

ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένα. καὶ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐφιλοτιμήθημεν, πάλαι ζητοῦντός

σου μαθεῖν τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μὴ μόνον σοι ποιῆσαι φανερὰν, ἀλλὰ καὶ

ἐφόδια δοῦναι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὴν ψευδῆ· οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὺ

φιλοτίμως τοῖς λοιποῖς διακονήσεις, κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ

Κυρίου σοὶ δεδομένην, εἰς τὸ μηκέτι παρασύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὑπὸ

τῆς ἐκείνων πιθανολογίας, οὔσης τοιαύτης.

65 I. Præf. 2. Ἵνα οὖν μὴ παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἰτίαν συναρπάζωνταί τινες,

ὡς πρόβατα ὑπὸ λύκων, ἀγνοοῦντες αὐτοὺς, διὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς

προβατείου δορᾶς ἐπιβουλὴν, οὓς φυλάσσειν παρήγγελκεν ἡμῖν Κύριος,

ὅμοια μὲν λαλοῦντας, ἀνόμοια δὲ φρονοῦντας· ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην,

ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν,

ἐνίοις δ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν,

μήνυσαί σοι, ἀγαπητὲ, τὰ τερατώδη καὶ βαθέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ πάντες

χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν ἐγκέφαλον ἐξεπτύκασιν· ὅπως καὶ σὺ

μαθὼν αὐτὰ, πᾶσι τοῖς μετὰ σοῦ φανερὰ ποιήσῃς, καὶ παραινέσῃς αὐτοῖς

φυλάξασθαι τὸν βυθὸν τῆς ἀνοίας, καὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν βλασφημίας.

66 III. iii. 1. given at length in ch. II. of this work.

67 III. xxi. 1. given at length in the chapter _on the Canon, &c. of

Holy Scripture_.

68 See Epiphan. _de Pond. et Mens._ § 17. and the _Alexandrian

Chronicle_, quoted by Massuet, _Diss._ II. § 47.

69 Book I. xxxi. 4. Cum igitur hæc sic se habeant, quatenus promisi,

secundum nostram virtutem inferemus eversionem ipsorum, omnibus eis

contradicentes in sequenti libro: (enarratio enim in longum pergit,

ut vides:) et viatica quoque dabimus ad eversionem ipsorum,

occurrentes omnibus sententiis secundum narrationis ordinem: ut

simus non tantum ostendentes, sed et vulnerantes undique bestiam.

70 III. Præf. Misimus tibi libros, ex quibus primus quidem omnium

illorum sententias continet, et consuetudines, et characteres

ostendit conversationis eorum. In secundo vero destructa et eversa

sunt quæ ab ipsis male docentur, et nudata, et ostensa sunt talia

qualia et sunt. In hoc autem tertio ex Scripturis inferemus

ostensiones, ut nihil tibi ex his, quæ præceperas, desit a nobis;

sed et, præterquam opinabaris, ad arguendum et evertendum eos, qui

quolibet modo male docent, occasiones a nobis accipias. Quæ enim est

in Deo charitas, dives et sine invidia exsistens, plura donat quam

postulet quis ab ea. Memento igitur eorum quæ diximus in prioribus

duobus libris; et hæc illis adjungens, plenissimam habebis a nobis

adversus omnes hæreticos contradictionem, et fiducialiter ac

instantissime resistes eis pro sola vera ac vivifica fide, quam ab

Apostolis Ecclesia percepit, et distribuit filiis suis. Etenim

Dominus omnium dedit Apostolis suis potestatem Evangelii, per quos

et veritatem, hoc est, Dei Filii doctrinam cognovimus; quibus et

dixit Dominus: Qui vos audit, me audit: et qui vos contemnit, me

contemnit, et eum qui me misit.

71 Ib. & IV. Præf. 1. Hunc quartum librum, dilectissime, transmittens

tibi, operis quod est de detectione et eversione falsæ cognitionis,

quemadmodum promisimus, per Domini sermones ea, quæ prædiximus,

confirmabimus.——V. Præf. Traductis, dilectissime, omnibus hæreticis

in quatuor libris, qui sunt tibi ante hunc a nobis editi, et

doctrinis ipsorum manifestatis; eversis quoque his, qui irreligiosas

adinvenerunt sententias, aliquid quidem ex propria uniuscujusque

illorum doctrina, quam in suis conscriptis reliquerunt; aliquid

autem ex ratione, universis ostensionibus procedente; et veritate

ostensa, et manifestato præconio Ecclesiæ, quod Prophetæ quidem

præconaverunt, quemadmodum demonstravimus, perfecit autem Christus,

Apostoli vero tradiderunt, a quibus Ecclesia accipiens, per

universum mundum sola bene custodiens, tradidit filiis suis;

quæstionibusque omnibus solutis, quæ ab hæreticis nobis proponuntur;

et Apostolorum doctrina explanata, et manifestatis pluribus, quæ a

Domino per parabolas et dicta sunt et facta: in hoc libro quinto,

operis universi, quod est de traductione et eversione falso

cognominatæ agnitionis, ex reliquis doctrinæ Domini nostri, et ex

Apostolicis epistolis, conabimur ostensiones facere.

72 I. Præf. 2. Καὶ, καθὼς δύναμις ἡμῖν, τήν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν

παραδιδασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς

Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, συντόμως καὶ σαφῶς ἀπαγγελοῦμεν.

73 II. Præf. 2. In hoc autem libro instruemus quæ nobis apta sunt, et

quæ permittit tempus, et evertemus per magna capitula omnem ipsorum

regulam: quapropter, quod sit detectio et eversio sententiæ ipsorum,

operis hujus conscriptionem ita titulavimus. Oportet enim

absconditas ipsorum conjugationes, per manifestarum conjugationum

indicium et eversionem, Bythum dissolvere; et quoniam neque fuerit

aliquando, neque sit, accipere ostensionem.

74 See note 10 above, p. 34.

75 See III. ii. 1. quoted in the chapter on _Tradition_.

76 III. v. 1.

77 See IV. Præf. 1. quoted above, p. 35. and i. 1. Cum sit igitur hoc

firmum et constans, neminem alterum Deum et Dominum a Spiritu

prædicatum, nisi eum qui dominatur omnium Deus, cum Verbo suo, et

eos qui adoptionis Spiritum accipiunt, hoc est, eos qui credunt in

unum et verum Deum, et Christum Jesum Filium Dei; similiter et

Apostolos neminem alium a semetipsis Deum appellasse, aut Dominum

cognominasse; multo autem magis Dominum nostrum, qui et nobis

præcepit neminem Patrem confiteri, nisi eum qui est in cœlis, qui

est unus Deus, et unus Pater.

78 See V. Præf. quoted above, p. 35.

79 _In Bibliotheca_, cod. 120.

80 Massuet, _Diss._ II. §. 53. Quisquis Irenæum Latinum cum Tertulliano

contulerit, e vestigio deprehendet adeo hunc vestigia illius

premere, adeo verbis ipsis, verborumque figuris et ordini adhærere,

ut id unum sibi proposuisse videatur, paucioribus contrahere, iisdem

sæpe servatis verbis, immixtis tamen pro more dicteriis, quæ ille

fusioribus exsequutus est. Sic Irenæus, lib. I. cap. xi. n. 3.

Epiphanis sententiam referens, scribit: “Est quidem ante omnes

Proarche, proanennoëtos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam

ego monotetem voco. Cum hac monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco

henotetem. Hæc henotes et monotes, cum sint unum, emiserunt, cum

nihil emiserint, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton,

quam archem sermo monada vocat. Cum hac monade est virtus ejusdem

substantiæ ei, quam et eam voco hen. Hæ autem virtutes, id est,

monotes et henotes, et monas, et hen, emiserunt reliquas emissiones

Æonum.” Tertullianus vero cap. 37. “Est,” inquit, “ante omnia

Proarche, inexcogitabile et inenarrabile, quod ego nomino monoteta.

Cum hac erat alia virtus, quam et ipsam appello henoteta. Monotes et

henotes, id est, solitas et unitas, cum unum essent, protulerunt,

non proferentes, initium omnium intellectuale, innascibile,

invisibile, quod sermo monada vocavit. Huic adest consubstantiva

virtus, quam appellat unio. Hæ igitur virtutes, solitas,

singularitas, unitas, unio, cæteras prolationes Æonum propagarunt.”

Ubi eadem verba, (nisi quod Græca quædam Latine vertuntur,) eadem

styli barbaries, atque apud Irenæi interpretem occurrunt. Hic n. 5.

“Alii rursus ipsorum primam et archegonon octonationem his nominibus

nominaverunt: primum Proarchen, deinde Anennoëton, tertiam autem

Arrheton, et quartam Aoraton. Et de prima quidem Proarche emissum

esse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto secundo et sexto loco

Acatalepton; et de Arrheto tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston; de

Aorato autem quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Tertullianus, cap.

25. totidem verbis: “Primo enim constituunt Proarchen, secundo

Anennoëton, tertio Arrheton, quarto Aoraton. Ex Proarche itaque

processisse primo et quinto loco Archen; ex Anennoëto, secundo et

sexto loco Acatalepton; ex Arrheto, tertio et septimo loco

Anonomaston; ex Invisibili, quarto et octavo loco Agenneton.” Certe

si e Græco immediate exscripsisset omnia hæc Tertullianus, tot

nomina Græca Latine vertisset; nec fortuito et casu fieri potuit ut

hoc illi cum Irenæi interprete convenerit. Hic cap. xii. n. 3.

Colorbaseorum hypothesim sic exponit. “Quando cogitavit aliquid

emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est; at ubi quæ emisit, vera

fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum

ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. Quos autem præcogitaverat

posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Loquutus est Anthropos

Logon, hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et

sic prima octonatio completa est.” Ille cap. 36. “Quum, inquiunt,

cogitavit proferre, hoc Pater dictus est; quum protulit, quia vera

protulit, hic Veritas appellata est. Quum semetipsum voluit probari,

hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem præcogitavit, cum protulit,

tunc Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit Homo Sermonem, et hic est

primogenitus Filius: et Sermoni accessit Vita, et ogdoas prima

conclusa est.” Plura alia similia passim occurrunt apud

Tertullianum. Sed quod demum ostendit hunc non e Græco, sed ex

interprete Irenæi sumpsisse quæ refert, illud est, quod ubi lapsus

est interpres Græca perperam reddens, lapsus est et Tertullianus.

Ille, ut jam dixi, nomen Ἐπιφανὴς appellativum esse putans, male

omnino vertit “clarus.” Tertullianus similiter errantem sequutus

scripsit, “insignior.” Irenæus, cap. ii. n. 3. Sophiæ perturbationem

enarrans, scribit eam, fœtum informem cum peperisset, “primo quidem

contristatam propter inconsummationem generationis, post deinde,

φοβηθῆναι μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ τέλος ἔχῃ.” Sic saltem legit interpres; vertit

enim, “timuisse ne hoc ipsum finem habeat;” ubi τέλος

“perfectionem,” non “finem” vertendum erat, ut in notis ad hunc

locum diximus. Nec melius Tertullianus, cap. 10. “primo quidem

contristari propter inconsummationem generationis, et metuere

postremo, ne finis quoque insisteret.” Ubi similiter τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς

γεννήσεως vertit “inconsummationem generationis;” et relicto Irenæo

Græco, Latinum interpretem sequutus scripsit, “ne quoque finis

insisteret.” Eodem cap. n. 4. refert Irenæus, quod Pater per

Monogenem emiserit Horon in imagine sua, ἀσύζυγον, ἀθήλυντον: ubi

interpres perperam legens ἀσυζύγῳ, ἀθηλύντῳ, vel, ut alii volunt,

ἀῥῥενοθήλει, perperam et vertit, “sine conjuge masculo‐fœmina.”

Eadem culpa tenetur et Tertullianus, cap. cit. “Pater per Monogenem

Nun, quem supra diximus Horon, in hæc promit in imagine sua fœmina‐

mare.” Nempe uterque id ad imaginem refert, quod Horo soli convenire

posse recta ratio demonstrat. Culpam hanc non sustineret

Tertullianus, si textum Græcum hic potius quam interpretem

consuluisset. Paulo post, Sophian ab Horo mundatam et confirmatam,

ac suæ restitutam conjugationi cum dixisset Irenæus, addit:

Χωρισθείσης γὰρ τῆς ἐνθυμήσεως ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,

αὐτὴν μὲν ἐντὸς Πληρώματος μεῖναι· τὴν δὲ ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς σὺν τῷ

πάθει ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὅρου ἀφορισθῆναι καὶ ἀποσταυρωθῆναι. Quæ sic reddidit

interpres: “Separata enim intentione ab ea, cum appendice passione,

ipsam quidem infra Pleroma perseverasse: concupiscentiam vero ejus

cum passione ab Horo separatam, et crucifixam, et extra cum factam

esse, &c.” ubi duo peccat, primum quod, σὺν τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει,

vertit, “cum appendice passione;” vertendum erat, “cum passione quæ

supervenerat.” Secundum, quod ἀποσταυρωθῆναι vertit, “crucifixam;”

hic significat, quasi “vallo cinctam et disjunctam” a Pleromate.

Eadem omnino peccat et Tertullianus, scribens: “Enthymesin ejus et

illam appendicem passionem ab Horo relegatam et crucifixam.” Hæc et

plura alia, quæ identidem in notis observavi, invicte, ni fallor,

probant, Tertullianum, ut Græcum Irenæum legerit, (quod non nego) ab

eo tamen sæpe defecisse, ut Latini interpretis, et quidem interdum

errantis, vestigia sectaretur.